KIPP New Jersey

Legal name: Kipp Cooper Norcross Inc a New Jersey Nonprofit Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455040456
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Newark, NJ, USA
Phone
(973) 622-0905
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$74,146,527
Expenses
$78,113,551
Assets
$202,576,178
Liabilities
$204,864,889

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RAHUL GOYAL (PRESIDENT AND TRUSTEE)
  • DREW MARTIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANNE KADOWAKI (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $265,890 total reported compensation
  • BRIDGIT CUSATO-ROSA (SCHOOL LEADER): $220,742 total reported compensation
  • TRAVIS DEMPSEY (HEAD OF SCHOOLS): $202,718 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

KIPP New Jersey is creating a network of schools in Camden, Newark, and Paterson where our students are prepared to succeed in college and careers.

What it reported doing in 2024

The corporation is organized and operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes within the meaning of the section 501(c)(3) of the IRS revenue code of 1986 to operate nonprofit educational institutions, including, but not limited to, a renaissance school or schools, within the state of nj and to deal generally therein.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 92% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.8%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 74.3%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $186.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.59; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.01; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.4%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 78.8% of revenue deployed · 74.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $58M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $266K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $7.1M reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.